Looks like window seats may be harder to get soon. Last week New Tech Spy said this.

I'm not sure if this isn't a rehash of old news. I've seen Boeing talking up the blended wing for some time. The thought is that if passengers had a video monitor in front of them (and the ability to select external camera views), then they'd be just as happy without windows (so I heard in one marketing pitch).

The Blended Wing carries several problems. It will have issues with loading and evacuation, but I think those problems are common with any 500+ passenger capable planes. I also think loading and evacuation might be improved with shorter rows. The other problem is the passengers further away from the center line will experience greater forces as the plane banks. I would hate to be passenger out on the wing when the plane is flying delay patterns.

Otherwise, I like the idea. What I like most is truly an innovative approach. I do hope Boeing produces the 797 and that it does well.

Speaking of Boeing, new planes, and such... I can imagine the 797 would make a great tanker.

(Rand, can you teach Sam, and other new hires, to place the new window command in their URL calls... I've always liked that aspect of your blog).

fixed.

I tend to get airsick if I don't have the visual input of the window, and being out on the tip of the wing would be more like a circus ride, but I'd do it if there were in-seat monitors. Besides, I think the view would be much greater, particularly if you had several cameras to choose from. A GPS screen would be nice too. And while, we're at it, add a touch screen menu to order beverages.

The view isn't the (only) reason I like windows. I also like to cocoon in the seat and not be disturbed by people getting up and down, or being jostled by people going up and down the aisle.

I really wish that Boeing would put a little effort into affordable supersonic flight. Unfortunately, they see aeronautics R&D as a profit center, instead of a cost center.

What will they do after the 797? A 7A7? They're running out of letters - it's a disaster, Boeing can't build any new airplane models after the 797. :)

I like a window seat, it's cool watch outside. Cameras don't substitute for that.

Why would evacuation or loading/unloading be hard? You could even park it backwards or sideways or something and use multiple exits.

Improved fuel economy would be useful. Especially if there's going to be some carbon tax on jet fuel.

These things have been pondered quite long, dunno why we don't have these yet. Maybe the development costs are too high. Let's see.. These might not be related but: the A-12 failed totally (overweight). The B-2 is extremely expensive. The YB-49 was obsolete (too slow) very quickly.

> The other problem is the passengers further away
> from the center line will experience greater
> forces as the plane banks. I would hate to be
> passenger out on the wing when the plane is
> flying delay patterns.

In a properly coordinated turn the force stays perpendicular to the floor of the plane, and there is no difference in force between various areas of the aircraft.

I just hope they decide to actually build this as shown, instead of teasing everyone for a year or so and then changing back to a more conservative design (see also: Sonic Cruiser)

-S

In a properly coordinated turn the force stays perpendicular to the floor of the plane, and there is no difference in force between various areas of the aircraft.

True, but if the airplane rolls a bit during turbulent flight, a passenger near the edge of the wing will experience significant vertical motion while someone on the centerline would just feel a slight rotation.

-S

All this talk about bigger and better aircraft, yet all I ever get to fly on are MD80s (really just over-hyped DC9s) and 737s. Just once I got to fly on a 777 - never been on a 747.

So, I doubt the 797 or the Airbus dingus is in my particular future. But build, boys, build!

Boeing was hauling this concept between airshows and conventions for years. It's nothing new. The problem is, the projected gains so far were not as spectacular as the TechSpy article suggested.

Servicing those high-mounted engines is going to be annoying, that's for sure. It's L-1011 times three (and a much, much bigger fan diameter).

I love window seats just like any other guy, but I love cheap tickets even more.

The author of that article provided no evidence that Boeing is actually considering doing this, such as a quote from a Boeing official.

Boeing has been evaluating flying wing designs (sometimes referred to as Blended Wing Body or BWB designs) for over two decades. But these are always low level studies and they have never gotten funded toward advanced development. The senior leadership in the commercial aircraft division doesn't believe in them.

There are other reasons to believe that they are not pursuing this now. First, Boeing has stated that it has passenger traffic models that indicate that point to point transportation is where the real money is and passengers are less interested in the hub and spoke system. If they really do believe what they are saying (and they must, because they are spending billions to build the 787 based upon this model), then they don't need a 1000-seat airplane.

Finally, they are already spending billions to develop the 787. They do not have billions more to develop the flying wing passenger plane. It will be many more years before they make such a decision.

I'd be willing to give up a window seat if the designers re-think the seating layout to take advantage of the greater width of the cabin -- perhaps something similar to current theater stadium seating, with escape routes which move to the sides rather than down a long, narrow aisle.

BAH! Aviation history is littered with the remains of aircraft giantism. The Euros got suckered by Boeing and their own need for nationalistic expression when they started the 380. Not they're paying the price as Boeing takes away the rest of the market from them. I don't anticipate Boeing falling into the same trap soon.

As I understand it, the reason for no flying-wing airliners so far, is the need to pressurise the cabin. The easiest shape to pressurise is a sphere. Second easiest is a tube. Hence tubes and wings. Has there been some breakthrough in pressurization?

Here's a NASA fact sheet from July 1997

I see the future like Joe Athelli. I don't see Boeing producing this. However, it is the first time I have heard the BWB referred to as the 797.

I see them building it but not being in a big hurry.

I suspect they will pay off the 787 before they start spending big money on this.

Looks like a rehash of old news to drum up some press. Blended wings make the rounds every few years and probably always will do. And they'll be killed for the same reasons they always are.

I'm with Rand on this, it would be nice if somebody could put some effort into affordable supersonic flight, but even then I don't think they're going to bother. Especially if aviation fuel starts getting taxed.

Airbus are hardly a write-off. This is just the posturing you see from an industry completed dominated by 2 suppliers.

Robert Crandall will have a ticket to heaven, but he will spend eternity in the hub at Gehenna, listening to the PA system announce flight delays.

No more big airplanes would suit me fine. I actually like the Bombardier "regional" jets better than the overgrown ones. 757s have stranded me overnight in more than one airport, and since no airport in the world has actually implemented multiple jetways, like Tripp intended, boarding and debarking are always a nightmare, made worse by the total lack of rational baggage handling. It's always fun to find that your seatmate wants to stuff a two-week trip's worth, including samples, in the overhead bin, and travels in anvils.

And fun as flying wings are, they're like fusion -- the aircraft of the future: always have been, always will be.

Regards,
Ric

From what I read in the press, the next new airplane from Boeing is going to be a replacement for the phenomenally successful 737 (using the composite technology being demonstrated on the 787).

Boeing is in great shape, unless the 787 hits significant problems. Then they're in trouble.

My problem with window seats is, I get a stiff neck. Not sure that would make up for the narrow scope of a video screen, even with a wide choice of feeds.

After all, I play a lot with Gargle Earth (correct name blacklisted, LOL), but I still end up having to go outside sometimes.

Whatever the 797 ends up being, I can assure you it will not be a Blended Wing Body. The 7-series aircraft are commercial aircraft, and BCA is headquartered in Seattle. The Blended Wing Body is a McDonnell Douglas concept. There is no way in hell Boeing Seattle will ever allow a commercial airplane from McDonnell Dougas to be built. It has nothing to do with efficiency, technology, or even profit. To many at Boeing, McDonnell Douglas is the enemy.

I'll give you an example. Shortly after the merger, BCA was getting ready to launch a new aircraft in response to the Airbus A-380. Their first choice was the 747X, an enlarged 747 with a full double-deck that would take on the A-380 head-to-head. The board of directors, 1/3 of their members being from the McDonnell Douglas board, balked at the cost of the plane. BCA just couldn't project enough sales of it to make a profit on it.

So they tried a different approach. If they couldn't take Airbus on head-to-head, they'd be bolder. Seattle pitched the Sonic Cruiser, and Douglas pitched the Blended Wing Body. The response from the airlines was fascinating. No one -- not one airline -- wanted to be the launch customer for the Sonic Cruiser, but four or five were willing to launch the Blended Wing Body. One airline executive was so thrilled with the Blended Wing Body, he offered BCA a billion dollars to develop it.

BCA's response?

"As long as I am president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Aircraft, we will not build the Blended Wing Body."

- Alan Mullaly, president & CEO of BCA

That right there tells you all you need to know about this supposed 797 BWB.

Incidently, the Blended Wing Body that's being tested in the wind tunnel is the X-48. Douglas got some money from the Pentagon to investigate the concept for military purposes. So it may yet get built, but not as a commercial airplane.

Mike

Same hype as always. And you people fall for it. If not a pure hoax the BWB 797 is just some more BS put out by Boeing to mask what they are really going to do. But trust me - it will be lot more conservative than the artists renderings you have seen. Composite fuselage is the risk for this decade and next for boeing. If it works they are miles ahead and the "797" will be a composite fuselage replacement version for one of the existing a/c types. Boeing hasn't taken a big risk for over 35 years since it rolled he dice on the 747. This new composite fuselage is the biggest risk they have taken in a long time. If it works they will milk that position in the industry till the return on their investment dictates it's time to take another risk. You may not see another big risk out Boeing for another 20 years.

Just an observation on the article's comments on cruising speed: Mach 0.88 only equates to 684 mph at sea level. No airliner is going to fly at low altitude. At the usual cruising altitude of about 35000 ft Mach 0.88 actually comes out at about 584 mph.

Boeing is in the process of building this craft. There are two smaller scale prototypes built now. There is no mention of making it a commercial airliner though. The Air Force is interested in the craft. As for Boeing not having the money, guess again. They have a boatload of money, with quarterly profits in the billions. The new 787 Dreamliner has pleanty of orders now to keep the program running. Check it out on Boeings site.
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/news/2006/q2/060504b_nr.html